It's perfectly written, and I don't know if that's a testament to Rob's ability as a creative writer, or to how much time he's spent engulfed in a startup culture where this sort of behaviour is far closer to the realm of possibility than one might imagine or (arguably) hope.
I made it to the robot full of prerecorded videos before my eyebrow went up and alarms and whistles went off in my brain.
I'd hope that is the furthest anyone would have to go to se the absurdity. I'd be interested if anyone made it past that before noticing it was a joke.
I actually emailed this to all my friends/managers at work, then I got to the vibrator part, then I realized it was written in jest, then I frantically scrambled to recall the email.
The pre-recorded videos on a robot clinched it, but the first thing that struck me as weird was the pointless "in Ubuntu" when talking about the Python script at the start.
I could conceivably see someone utilising OpenCV to "try" to measure attractiveness. I could also see someone trying sentiment analysis with NLTK... but farming it out to a low paid worker is just insane.
Farm it out to many people in return for some tiny (but not monetary) reward.
OKCupid used to have a feature for "choose my best image". Users submit two images, then rate other people's images. One of your images is presented alongside one other image from some other user, and someone else has to pick which one they like most. OKC then used their stats to give some analysis to it.
It was sort of great, except there were usually too few people to get any kind of sensible results.
It's easy to see that this could be a useful approach.
insanity is in the eye of beholder. There are probably thousands of executives in the world that use the help of their personal assistants when organizing dating. Leap from that to use virtual assistants is not a biggie. however, there are probably none or just a few crazy geeks that even try to use the help of machine vision for dating.
That's the thing, the initial steps sound like exactly what a hacker would look at. And we're so busy furrowing our brows to follow the technology that we don't realise the ridiculousness of what he's doing until there's a robot attending the date. He's basically played a trick on our left brain.
You're on to something when discussing Rob's ability as a writer. Smart money says communication is his real strength. By speaking in startup/engineer vernacular to starry eyed bored dreamers(you: hn, vice, digg, reddit consumers) he's generated millions in pre-sales and investment without delivering anything.
I found it awfully dehumanizing of the "females" in the narrative. Maybe I just don't get the joke.
Pro-tip: It's rarely idiomatic English to call someone "a female," unless you're purposefully trying to compare her to an animal.[1] Female is a species-neutral term (like "breeding"). When talking about humans, it's proper to use the anthropic term "woman."
[1] My observation is that women refer to men as "male" much less often than the reverse, but when they do they often intend the comparison to animals.
It was very dehumanizing, and I think (hope) that was the entire point.
I'm also surprised about how often I see English-speakers talk about "females" rather than "women". I vaguely suspect that might say something profound about an aspect of American culture that's deeply wrong about how it views women.
Or, less cynically, because no one uses 'gals'. There is no female analog to 'guys'. Males under age 18 -> boys. Males 18-35 -> guys. Males over 35 -> men.
For female, it's less clear. Calling a 20-something a 'girl' might be viewed offensively as diminutive. Calling college students 'women' can also seem awkward casual contexts (it's perfectly fine in most).
I've gotten to a point where I'm more frequently associating with people (including 'females') in the 25-35 age range and have had this debate internally. I've started using 'lady' for this very purpose, though I realize it's not as socially common. I might recount an interaction by referring to 'A guy' or 'A lady' I met (rather than 'girl'). Personally, I'd love for it to be socially acceptable to refer to people with words that don't presuppose age (or gender, for that matter) but that time isn't coming anytime soon.
Yeah; the implication is there that women are mundane. E.g. No mention of what happens when his robot is met by her robot for instance. How would the neural link be made then? Would they even need to book an airbnb? Couldn't they exchange neural feeds right there in the restaurant?
I suspect that he has a low-level override in that case that lets them conference more directly, as they are obviously soulmate material. :) "No kidding, you automated your dating too? SWEET!"
Actually, I was picturing the female sending her robot to meet the robot he sent ... the restaurant bill should be pretty cheap and hopefully the wine doesn't short it out.
I always liked that little linguistic distinction, but it was taken far more seriously decades ago than it is today, when the phrase "a female lawyer" would seem gauche and "a woman lawyer" would be more appropriate. But the adjective sense of the word "woman" is essentially extinct today.
I would infer it more as a sign of pseudoscientific language than as a comparison to animals, and the pseudoscientific tone is appropriate in the context of TFA.
You can call me a "male" if you like. I do not find it offensive at all, even if intentionally used in that way. I am an animal after all. It's only double standards that I would have a problem with.
Right but the use of men by women is almost always negative and dehumanizing. "ugh..men" "men are always..." the only positive connotation I can think of is "now that's a man" but that's slightly different in the singular use and by implication it infers most men don't qualify as a "man"... in any case let's not read too much into the sarcastic tone of the post. if you're looking for something to upset you, I guarantee you'll find it.
> Right but the use of men by women is almost always negative and dehumanizing.
Since when? All the women I know use "man" or "men" (or informally, "guy"), correctly when referring to a male member of the human species. My wife might say: "my supervisor on this matter is a man." A disproportionate number of men I know incorrectly use "female" when they mean "woman." E.g. one might say "my new boss is female."
But that's in your circle of friends. Grand parent's circle of friends -- and culture -- is different from yours and uses word with slightly different connotations. Which brings us back to square one: the use of the word "female" is not dehumanizing in most contexts to a large number of people. I really think 'mynewwork is onto something about why the word "male" is more dehumanizing than the word "female":
> There is no female analog to 'guys'. Males under age 18 -> boys. Males 18-35 -> guys. Males over 35 -> men.
There isn't an obvious alternative to the word "female", as calling a, uhm, "female" of younger age a "woman" can potentially be awkward, so referring to her as a female is simply the next best option. I suspect that it's because of this reality that the word "female" is increasingly more accepted as a safe and normal pronoun.
> Right but the use of men by women is almost always negative and dehumanizing.
I'm 30 and I haven't seen this be the case anywhere ever.
I have encountered some people who condescendingly use "boys" when they want to disparage adult men. It's always bugged me even when I was a teenager, although for some reason all the gay men I know use it. I think a similar dynamic exists with women and "girls".
I find myself using "female" occasionally, not to refer to women I would date but because English doesn't have another good word for "feminine humans of an indeterminate age". I occasionally use "chicks" for similar reasons.
The robot isn't too implausible, if you could convince your date to accept a telepresence which is just weird and wacky enough it might work some percent of the time. The hard part would be getting the AI good enough, but it's not impossible.
Weird and wacky? Sure. But if I were a lady I wouldn't want to be seen out on a date with a telepresence bot. (In fact, it's not even telepresence - it's surrogacy!) Perhaps if distance were an issue I would accept a Skype date at a restaurant (with a live date on the other end). Bringing my relatively inconspicuous iPad and conversing with another human is within the realm of socially normal behaviour.
I don't know. As a "female" I started getting that squicky dehumanized feeling... until I realized the possibilities. Put that boy on mute and you've got the makings of a lovely subsidized evening!
I actually thought it was true - and was thinking "oh shit, this guy must be a good programmer" - until the moment he explains how the actual date involves a robot.
